|
So, I used to follow broodwar very closely, and I've finally gotten over my snobbiness and moves over to the SC2 scene. But now I'm questioning the usefulness of stalkers. I've hit 1800 diamond(still going up so... dunno where i'll stop just yet) and honestly, it's VERY rare for me to use a stalker heavy army(excluding PvP obviously). I can't remember any 1v1 games where I used stalkers. Stalkers seems to melt against pretty much any unit. I do understand that they are GREAT supporting units, but once your zelots are dead, or you're out of forcefields, they seems to be completely useless.
Yes stalkers are "fast" but think about units that are FASTER than stalkers, zerglings, and bio units. both of which WRECKS stalkers. Even with blink, running away seems to be difficult unless you used blink against a cliff of something. Stalkers seem to be the least cost efficient unit. What is stalker supposed to counter? they somewhat counter zelots if zelots don't have charge, and they counter rines i suppose, but marauders, roaches, lings, they all eat through stalkers.
So, why is having stalkers as part of my army important? What's it's main purpose?
in BW goons were important against T since it was the only unit to really counter vultures effiently, and against Z they were only used during that mid game period since it was THE counter for lurkers from protoss. In SC2 it seems whatever stalkers can do, a lot of other units can do better.
I guess i do use stalkers when zerg going muta havey, but that's only because i have to, and even than, i try to transition over to archon/sentry ASAP.....
|
they seem to me kinda like building hydralisks; pointless
|
Except you have to build them because there is no choice. Its like building marines vs Templar Carrier *shudder*
|
Stalkers are not cost effective against hardly anything, they're a unit that is necessary in supporting your army composition due to the role that they fill.
-3 Zerglings for 75 minerals beat 1 stalker easily
-Roaches trade evenly against stalkers but are cheaper.
-Marauders beat stalkers and are cheaper.
-Stalkers aren't very cost effective against hydralisks.
-Stalkers do OK against marines in early game, but marines are very cheap and once they have combat shields and stim, stalkers have no chance versus them.
-Stalkers are only so-so against mutalisks, but lose to the mobility disadvantage. Stalkers can also get taken down by mutalisks at critical mass. Stalkers are usually only a short-term solution against mutalisk until you can get storm to deal with larger numbers.
-Stalkers do poorly against Banshees, and banshees can fly and ball up, which makes them even stronger due to being able to clump up and focus fire, using terrain/mobility to their advantage. Add PDD to this combo and your stalkers have no chance.
-Stalkers get slaughtered by thors, tanks, ultralisks. Basically any late game high tier unit crushes stalkers.
So, yes, stalkers suck, but Protoss have to build them because it's our only real option in a lot of situations. You have to have stalkers in every game. You need them to protect against air attacks, to protect your Collosi, to prevent kiting from roaches/hydra/marauders, and etc.
In conclusion: You can like them, you can hate them, you can cry about them, but you have two options: Build stalkers or lose.
|
|
|
Yes, stalker suck for their cost compared to other units. Protoss however doesn't have very many units that attack air during the early/mid game time except for phoenix and void rays, both of which require a completely different tech path.
|
Stalkers are really jack-of-all-trades as they are the most mobile/versatile of all tier 1 units.
Except replace 'jack' with a 'nine' or 'ten' instead.
|
Stalkers exist to protect your other units from getting kited.
Sure, they're weak and slow, but they're ranged. Until you get collosus/carrier, stick with the Stalkers.
|
lol at the stalker hate... stalkers are amazing in every matchup.
|
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
I get 1 banshee, gg
|
On November 18 2010 12:20 SteveNick wrote:
Stalkers are not cost effective against hardly anything, they're a unit that is necessary in supporting your army composition due to the role that they fill.
-3 Zerglings for 75 minerals beat 1 stalker easily
-Roaches trade evenly against stalkers but are cheaper.
-Marauders beat stalkers and are cheaper.
-Stalkers aren't very cost effective against hydralisks.
-Stalkers do OK against marines in early game, but marines are very cheap and once they have combat shields and stim, stalkers have no chance versus them.
-Stalkers are only so-so against mutalisks, but lose to the mobility disadvantage. Stalkers can also get taken down by mutalisks at critical mass. Stalkers are usually only a short-term solution against mutalisk until you can get storm to deal with larger numbers.
-Stalkers do poorly against Banshees, and banshees can fly and ball up, which makes them even stronger due to being able to clump up and focus fire, using terrain/mobility to their advantage. Add PDD to this combo and your stalkers have no chance.
-Stalkers get slaughtered by thors, tanks, ultralisks. Basically any late game high tier unit crushes stalkers.
So, yes, stalkers suck, but Protoss have to build them because it's our only real option in a lot of situations. You have to have stalkers in every game. You need them to protect against air attacks, to protect your Collosi, to prevent kiting from roaches/hydra/marauders, and etc.
There's your answer. You don't build them because you want to, you build them because you have to.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 18 2010 12:20 SteveNick wrote:
Stalkers are not cost effective against hardly anything, they're a unit that is necessary in supporting your army composition due to the role that they fill.
-3 Zerglings for 75 minerals beat 1 stalker easily
-Roaches trade evenly against stalkers but are cheaper.
-Marauders beat stalkers and are cheaper.
-Stalkers aren't very cost effective against hydralisks.
-Stalkers do OK against marines in early game, but marines are very cheap and once they have combat shields and stim, stalkers have no chance versus them.
-Stalkers are only so-so against mutalisks, but lose to the mobility disadvantage. Stalkers can also get taken down by mutalisks at critical mass. Stalkers are usually only a short-term solution against mutalisk until you can get storm to deal with larger numbers.
-Stalkers do poorly against Banshees, and banshees can fly and ball up, which makes them even stronger due to being able to clump up and focus fire, using terrain/mobility to their advantage. Add PDD to this combo and your stalkers have no chance.
-Stalkers get slaughtered by thors, tanks, ultralisks. Basically any late game high tier unit crushes stalkers.
So, yes, stalkers suck, but Protoss have to build them because it's our only real option in a lot of situations. You have to have stalkers in every game. You need them to protect against air attacks, to protect your Collosi, to prevent kiting from roaches/hydra/marauders, and etc.
since when do roaches trade evenly with stalkers!?!?
EDIT: stalkers have higher dps, 9.7 vs 8, plus 2 extra range, they both start off with the same amount of armor, stalkers start off faster, 80 shields plus 80 health is arguably better than 145 health... i could be way off here but the extra cost could be justifiable..
Perhaps the one change that i would agree the stalker needs is the upgrades to scale at +2, similar to the roach..
"END EDIT"
i need more roaches than they have stalkers, or at least the back up of a bunch of lings... and something that non zerg players often seem to disregard is that we have to manage larva, as effectively another resource. so yes lings are very effective against stalkers, but they cost a butt ton of larva to get a decent amount...
this being said, i wouldn't disagree that i smile when my opponent goes mass stalkers vs me as zerg.. 
from my limited toss knowledge (i did play them a little to begin with) i think there main purpose is simply to be the tanks of the army, while robo units do the damage...
|
When I tested Stalkers VS Roaches in the unit tester (9v9) Stalkers came out with like 3 units left on all upgrades, and when I used Stalker VS Hydra it was about the same but depending on who was attacking the Hydra's win out with 1 or 2 low health unit's or Stalkers with the same. No Mircro was involved and was done with an A-move into the other ball or an A-move into one another. Stalkers only really suck in PvZ because Lings mess with their targeting and have poor VS Air attack but I think that's because they are designed to be a support and not the damage dealer. So they are good against most Zerg units with Microing them to attack the right things but you really really need Zealots to take down Lings, and against Muta's you need Phoenix or HT but it sucks for toss that they have to tech to those =/
|
I don't think we should be thinking about this in a unit vs unit context. Stalkers help round out the weaknesses of your other Gateway units. For example, in the ZvP matchup, without Zealots your Stalkers would be very vulnerable to Zerglings. Without Stalkers, your Zealots would be very vulnerable to Roaches.
Stalkers are also excellent harass units when micro'd properly both early game (due to their innate speed) and beyond (due to blink).
Now I'm not a particularly high level Diamond so I don't want to toot my horn so loudly but if Stalkers suck so much then stop building them and see where that gets you. If you find yourself needing to build Stalkers then apparently they don't suck because they cover your ass in one way or another.
Also, I just hate that early first Stalker push. God that harass makes me want to choke out babies.
|
9 stalkers: 1125 min, 450 gas
9 roaches: 675 min, 225 gas
Equal resources, roaches absolutely destroy stalkers. And that's before they get burrow regen micro.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 18 2010 12:28 foo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 18 2010 12:20 SteveNick wrote:
Stalkers are not cost effective against hardly anything, they're a unit that is necessary in supporting your army composition due to the role that they fill.
-3 Zerglings for 75 minerals beat 1 stalker easily
-Roaches trade evenly against stalkers but are cheaper.
-Marauders beat stalkers and are cheaper.
-Stalkers aren't very cost effective against hydralisks.
-Stalkers do OK against marines in early game, but marines are very cheap and once they have combat shields and stim, stalkers have no chance versus them.
-Stalkers are only so-so against mutalisks, but lose to the mobility disadvantage. Stalkers can also get taken down by mutalisks at critical mass. Stalkers are usually only a short-term solution against mutalisk until you can get storm to deal with larger numbers.
-Stalkers do poorly against Banshees, and banshees can fly and ball up, which makes them even stronger due to being able to clump up and focus fire, using terrain/mobility to their advantage. Add PDD to this combo and your stalkers have no chance.
-Stalkers get slaughtered by thors, tanks, ultralisks. Basically any late game high tier unit crushes stalkers.
So, yes, stalkers suck, but Protoss have to build them because it's our only real option in a lot of situations. You have to have stalkers in every game. You need them to protect against air attacks, to protect your Collosi, to prevent kiting from roaches/hydra/marauders, and etc. since when do roaches trade evenly with stalkers!?!? i need more roaches than they have stalkers, or at least the back up of a bunch of lings... and something that non zerg players often seem to disregard is that we have to manage larva, as effectively another resource. so yes lings are very effective against stalkers, but they cost a butt ton of larva to get a decent amount... this being said, i wouldn't disagree that i smile when my opponent goes mass stalkers vs me as zerg.. from my limited toss knowledge (i did play them a little to begin with) i think there main purpose is simply to be the tanks of the army, while robo units do the damage...
A stalker fighting against a roach survives with 20-35 health left out of a total of 160. A stalker costs 125/50. A roach costs 75/25.
Put three roaches for 225/75 up against two stalkers for 250/100, and the roaches win.
This is ignoring the fact that Zerg can also generally get their economy up faster and make more units than Protoss can.
|
I think stalkers are vital in zvp matchup. If it wasn't for them, zerg could go mutaling every single game and win. I think stalkers are stronger than dragoons, and helpful early to put pressure on zerg because they aren't too bad against lings. I'm not sure about the tvp matchup though
|
On November 18 2010 12:33 RadicalEdwrd wrote:Now I'm not a particularly high level Diamond so I don't want to toot my horn so loudly but if Stalkers suck so much then stop building them and see where that gets you. If you find yourself needing to build Stalkers then apparently they don't suck because they cover your ass in one way or another.
It gets you kited, GG.
Whenever a player is good enough to just ignore the stalkers and kite the rest of your units, that is when Protoss flip their keyboards. Too bad nobody believes how crap they are until they've played Protoss for a good time.
|
They're the most cost ineffective unit in the game, no doubt. They're really good for early game pressure vs. Z and can be used really well in all 3 matches with blink up until the mid-game (NEXGenius has showed us this), but once that's over they're garbage. (immortals, marauders, and hydras lol and them)
|
Well spamming stalkers will not be cost effective unless you can blink micro which require a high APM. Nazgul pretty much shows how effective this is against zerg (idra).
I mean you can't win mostly with one unit
Zealot to absorb damage(zerglings) or sentries forcefields to abuse stalkers range
Meh its a good unit
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
